I have read with interest the discussions on the board concerning the Royal Festival Hall organ. The organ will not be changed tonally, not even minor tonal changes - the acoustic will be changed and this will have a profound impact on how the instrument sounds.
I have taken the liberty of adding here an essay published in the BIOS Reporter and Organ Club Journal which I hope will give a clearer picture of the works to the RFH organ.
Future plans at London’s Royal Festival Hall
William McVicker
SBC Organ Curator
It is often said that the best stop on an organ is its acoustic. It is well known that the Royal Festival Hall (RFH) has very little reverberation time – which is particularly disappointing as it is such a large building, with seating for almost 3000 people. Set in context some fifty years later the RFH does seem acoustically bald to say the least – but this is not quite how it was designed to be. It was constructed as part of the 1951 Festival of Britain – a festival which formed the cutting edge of modernism.
In 1948 the French radio broadcaster Pierre Schaeffer created the first electronic music studio. What preceded this was the formulation of the difference between the acoustic required in a studio and that for widely differing musical forms. Most acoustics textbooks contain graphs showing optimum reverberation times for auditoria of various sizes. At one end of the spectrum lie the needs of studios, speech and conference rooms which require as little resonance as possible, and at the other are the ideal conditions for organ music. Somewhere in the middle are optimum conditions for chamber music, which is performed in a more intimate space than, for example, opera and large-scale nineteenth-century orchestral music which, in turn, require enough reverberation time to provide warmth but not sufficient to cloud clarity. The RFH was designed to have a clear, dry acoustic. A recent study showed that Hope Bagenal, the RFH’s acoustician, used inaccurate absorption coefficients in his calculations when working out the proposed reverberation time for the new hall. This fact, together with the difficulties of finding high-quality construction materials in post-war Britain, resulted in the acoustics of the building being much drier than was expected. Into this environment the organ was constructed. The difficulties encountered by Harrison & Harrison and Ralph Downes are documented in the latter’s book Baroque Tricks. The author describes the depressing experience of hearing the virile pipework singing in the hall’s resonant marble lobbies and being transformed into a comb and paper sonority when brought into the auditorium. Of his first experience of the acoustic tests in the building, Downes wrote: ‘I breathed a fervent prayer of thanksgiving that it was not the organ but an orchestra that we had first heard in this astounding ambience: something would have to be done: and it was. In short a good deal of the eliminated natural resonance was recovered by filling up cavities, and removal of absorbents, though the large span and ingenious suspension of the ceiling absolutely forbade the addition of considerable weight to its fabric: at the very best, therefore, dryness would have to remain a characteristic of the hall’s acoustic properties.’
Not all the effects of this dry acoustic quality were negative: its character contributed to improvements in the standard of post-war orchestral playing in Britain. When the Hallé orchestra played there in the 1950s they were said to have sounded like a school band – the lack of resonance revealing ensemble and tuning difficulties not evident in halls blessed with a more generous reverberation time. The same must apply to the standard of organ playing – reviews from the 1950s document that some of the most well-known organists of the period found it difficult to adjust to the lack of reverberation. The hall’s character reveals any shortcomings in technique. Stephen Bicknell’s recent article in Choir & Organ (Jan/Feb 2004, p. 26-30) summarises some of the difficulties performers face when registering the instrument. The organ is, I believe, at its best when registrations are not doctrinaire, but are, as Andrew Marvell said in The Coronet, ‘set with Skill and chosen out with Care’.
The RFH acquired an assisted resonance system in the 1960s, based on Helmholz resonators; this was disconnected a number of years ago, because it malfunctioned. It never met with universal acclaim, as natural sound was amplified and reproduced through a speaker system – a process which almost negated the notion of going to listen to live orchestral music.
When the hall was built the idea that rock bands, with large amounts of kit and scenery, would use the auditorium was not contemplated. The RFH is now put to uses never envisaged at the outset of the planning process. Classical concerts now account for only 50% of the presentations at the hall and radical improvement to backstage access (for the daily ‘get-ins’ and ‘get-outs’) is now required. Such improvements have successfully been undertaken at the Royal Albert Hall. These changes will bring the hall’s facilities up to the standards prevalent in most busy world-class concert venues. A further complication is that the RFH stage is too small for large-scale orchestral productions and there is insufficient seating for concert choirs – a flaw which has become more apparent as the years have gone by. Mahler’s second and eighth symphonies are difficult to stage, and space is noticeably cramped and uncomfortable when accommodating large orchestras in, for example, The Alpine Symphony, or The Pines of Rome. The stage needs to be larger.
The process of examining the possibility of improving the acoustics has been going on for some time and has gone hand-in-hand with the fact that the building’s fabric is now over fifty years old and shows considerable signs of very heavy wear. Many of the seats in the auditorium are in poor condition, carpets are wearing out, and timbers and materials around entry and exit points have deteriorated. The two large ‘blast’ walls either side of the stage are positioned at too wide an angle to send first sound reflections (back) to the performers. Musical ensemble is difficult at some points on the stage because sound reflections are late. Many of the surfaces and fabrics are absorbent and not reflective; examples abound: carpets, tapestries, horse-hair filled leather walls, and thin, absorbent materials; the so-called Copenhagen panelling (a wooden knucklebone finish) was specifically designed to break up sound – which it does very effectively – sapping energy over a wide frequency range. The orchestral canopy is set too high above the orchestra to be wholly effective. Absorbers of low frequencies include the wooden organ doors, walls made of thin materials with cavities behind them, and the large air volume below the stage. There are acoustic ‘blackspots’ beneath the boxes (the Annexes) and below the balcony – even the very substantial organ chamber is an effective absorber. The seating, which, ironically, is considered to be acoustically good (enabling the reverberation to remain roughly the same whether the hall is full or empty), provides insufficient leg-room for modern audiences. The size and shape of the RFH (i.e., that it is not rectilinear) mean that it will never have the basic acoustic property of Vienna’s Musikverein or Amsterdam’s Concertgebouw. But the process of dealing with as many of these acoustic problems as is possible, within the constraints of the building’s Grade 1 listing, means that the South Bank Company (SBC) has confidence that the acoustic proposals (made by Kirkegaarde Associates and dealt with architecturally by Allies and Morrison) will enable significant acoustic gains to be made to the hall’s character.
I was asked by the SBC to look at the question whether or not the organ chamber could be reduced in depth. I decided to ask some of our eminent organ consultants to join me in pondering the complexities of any proposals and to this end Ian Bell, Nicolas Kynaston, John Norman and Dr Nicholas Thistlethwaite formed a think tank to ponder the many questions that had arisen. As a general principle the Organ Consultants’ Committee (OCC) felt it could be confidently stated that the tonal character and the experimental open-foot voicing of the organ could and should be safeguarded. It was also realised that, within the context of the substantial alterations required to the Hall’s fabric in order to accommodate the acoustic gains, the organ must, and should, play its part in the acoustic remodelling. If the Hall’s acoustic character changes, then so will the sound of the organ – even if nothing were to be done to the instrument. It is, therefore, important that the hand fits the new glove, so to speak, lest the organ sounds poorly balanced, crude and too loud (or, worse, too soft) when used in an orchestral context. Correction of the Hall’s hungriness in the lower frequency range will be of enormous benefit to the instrument – and should impart grandeur to its sound that the building effectively counteracts.
It is evident from archive documentation that the organ’s appearance was the cause of great argument between each of the interested parties, and it was only through mediation that the final result was achieved. One of the London County Council’s (LCC) architects wrote: ‘the installation of a large organ in a concert hall presents serious problems in design to meet effectively its acoustical needs as well as those of the orchestra and the choir … the need for good reflectors around the orchestra is very great, and a large opening is undoubtedly a disadvantage’.
The visual integration at the end of the hall became the subject of bitter debate between Downes and the auditorium architects represented by Sir Leslie Martin. One source of the problem was that Downes had talked extensively with Edwin Williams, another architect from the design team, who represented the ‘old school’ LCC approach. Williams gave some encouragement to the idea of a large symmetrical monogram of organ pipes. Correspondence survives which indicates Martin’s absolute horror at this approach: he would have seen this as entirely undermining the careful relationship of parts and threatening to dominate the hall. It was determined that the organ pipes would not be seen and would be hidden behind a gauze screen. Harrisons therefore built the instrument without particular regard for the visual arrangement of the pipework, which is why it seems relatively loosely organised today.
The appearance of the RFH organ is therefore something of an accident and was the result of indecision. A façade of pipes (referred to variously as the ‘monogram’, ‘organ case’ or ‘frontispiece’) was considered and two models made (now lost). The archive at Harrison & Harrison Ltd. of Durham contains letters and drawings relating to the discussions. In the late 1940s the architects wanted copper pipes in what was to be a substantial ‘monogram’, but post-war shortage of metals thwarted development of this plan, as copper had to be obtained under special government licence. A drawing was made in January 1950 and a mock-up erected in Durham some months later, but no decisions were taken. Eventually the idea of a ‘total grille’ replaced the monogram from about mid 1950. This grille was somewhat akin to the arrangement designed for the organ in the Colston Hall in Bristol – a functional and (then) fashionable way of avoiding the classic and expensive nineteenth-century-style town hall organ-pipe display. A letter in 1952 from Sir Leslie Martin put the monogram back on the agenda.
As discussions on the nature of the organ’s casework unexpectedly ground to a halt in 1952/3 the exposed pipework accidentally became the organ’s visual character – it has even acquired its own status, and this kind of open-plan style is now widely associated with Holtkamp, an American organ designer who developed this type of pipe architecture. The organ’s appearance in the auditorium (and, by default, its internal layout) is thus inextricably linked with the character of the RFH’s interior.
When viewed from the auditorium it is evident that the organ sits somewhat unhappily behind both the back wall of the choir and the so-called ‘chewing-gum’ strand of walnut which runs in front of the lower part of the organ and through its central section, providing architectural continuity between the substantial walnut blast walls. The various designs for the organ’s case were never realised and, with hindsight, it is clear that confusion in the early stages of planning between the designer Ralph Downes and Edwin Williams in the architect’s department, together with the expectation that the organ would have a more conventional façade, resulted in the fact that the organ sits too low within its chamber. Both the ‘chewing-gum’ strand and the choir wall had to be cut away at a late stage to allow for both unimpeded egress of sound and the visibility of the pipework.
The ‘monogram’ of copper, tin and wooden dummy pipes which sits on the front of the instrument was added at the eleventh hour by Sir Leslie Martin, possibly as a way of concealing the organ’s moving parts from the audience. The fiasco that surrounded this particular aspect of the organ’s design is documented in chapter ten of Ralph Downes’s book. The monogram front attracted a good deal of adverse criticism from the outset, principally because of the hopelessly overscaled wooden pipes.
The organ in the Royal Festival Hall is acknowledged to be an epoch-making instrument that changed the way organs were conceived and built in England in the second half of the twentieth century. It is constructed of high-quality materials and works hard to blend in one of the most difficult of acoustic spaces. Given the acoustic hurdles it acquits itself well in the auditorium.
SBC recognises that the instrument in its care has an important place in the development of English organ-building and musical composition during the second half of the twentieth century. The instrument has been widely written about and occupies a significant section in every history of the organ. Its importance has been neatly summarised in a recent publication by Peter Hardwick: British Organ Music of the Twentieth Century (Scarecrow Press, Inc., Maryland, 2003), p. ix: ‘The opening of the organ in the Royal Festival Hall, London, in 1954 … marked [not only] the beginning of Neoclassical organ building in Britain but also the start of the country’s Neoclassical organ composition’.
Summary of proposed alterations affecting the organ
The opportunity now arises to tackle the building’s acoustical shortcomings, to attempt to realise the ambitions the original design team aspired to, to provide a much-needed increase in the size of the stage, and to modernise the equipment and facilities in the Hall. The aims of the project are to restore the organ to reliable condition, to maintain its tonal integrity and to restore and rebalance the organ’s tonal output within the context of the change in the building’s acoustic profile.
In tackling the building’s acoustics and during the extensive refurbishment of the RFH auditorium, the organ is to be removed during building works. Some soundboards have suffered excessive shrinkage and will be remade; most will be restored and many repositioned. In order to achieve the increase in stage area it is proposed that the organ chamber be decreased in depth by 1.4m. The proposed increased depth of concert platform is the primary reason driving change to this instrument. The principal changes to the soundboard positions will be within the swell-boxes and hence will not be apparent to the eye. Although most of the organ is constructed on two levels only, the two Swell mixtures are at that upper level and there is a good deal of unused space within the Swell box. It is proposed that it be reordered more fully on two levels, as will the Choir and the Solo (also mostly on one level at present), releasing space within the chamber.
The pipework is to be raised by 400mm. The repositioning of the organ will allow its visual character clearly to be seen from the auditorium without changing the general layout of the instrument. The frame of the organ will need to be remade to accommodate this change, as will the wind system. A revised scheme has been achieved by applying and continuing the designer’s logic to the interior layout of the instrument (by keeping the high-pitched stops at the upper level). The Great and Pedal reeds (8ft, 4ft and 2ft) will be moved towards the rear wall of the chamber and the Pedal mixtures will join them upstairs. The position of the console will change. It will be moved towards the organ by a metre or so and thus will be attached to it. This will prevent the almost continuous damage to its fabric from the lighting rigs which collide with it when lowered from the ceiling. The OCC unanimously recommended the disposal of the ‘monogram’ feature on the grounds that it looks weak, that the overscaled wooden pipes in particular are profoundly at odds with the organ’s tonal character and that there will be no room for it in a revised scheme if the organ’s depth is reduced.
Tonally there will be no changes to the organ. The Solo reeds, which are buried at the back of the box, will be brought to the front into a more conventional position and the 32ft flue pipes will be better spaced to allow them to speak more effectively. The reflector above the pipework at present is made of a composite material which resembles the fibre of a doormat. This has a thin plaster skin and the whole is a very effective absorber. The unenclosed reeds at the upper level, which at close quarters are strong and vibrant, have much of their energy absorbed by the ceiling. The organ chamber will be made more reflective and the plans provide for the addition of a more effective reflector.
The scheme of work to the organ is designed to allow the instrument to be repositioned in a smaller chamber, undertaking a minimum of alteration to the organ’s mechanism, retaining the organ’s tonal character whilst allowing the chamber to absorb less sound and reflect more. When the RFH’s acoustic character has been remodelled and the organ reinstalled, the pipework will be rebalanced to take into account the changes in the building’s profile.
In November 2003 a notice appeared in the Publication of Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) inviting organ builders with relevant experience to express an invitation to tender for works to the organ. Three companies were selected from those expressions of interest (Harrison & Harrison Ltd, Mander Organs and Casavant Freres) and Harrison & Harrison Ltd of Durham have been chosen as preferred contractor, pending completion of contract. The present organ recital series will come to a close in 2005 and so a chapter of organ history will close. It is hoped that a new one will open in 2007.
